M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.) The appellants in this second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code' for short) are the plaintiffs 1 to 9, 11, 12 and 13 in OS.No. 584 of 1999. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by a common judgment, dated 28.08.2014, passed in OS.Nos.584 of 1999, 552 of 1999 and 201 of 1999, dismissed the suits, OS. nos.584 and 552 of 1999, but, decreed with costs OS.No. 201 of 1999 and granted a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff therein, that is, S.M.A.C.H.S. Limited (Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited) represented by its President, I.S.N. Vinod Reddy. 1A. Aggrieved of the common judgment insofar as the dismissal of OS.No. 584 of 1999, the plaintiffs therein including the present appellants preferred A.S.No. 272 of 2014 before the Court of the learned XVI Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, III Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri. The learned Additional District Judge by decree and judgment, dated 07.12.2015, dismissed the said first appeal suit and confirmed the decree of the trial Court in OS.No. 584 of 1999. Aggrieved thereof, this second appeal is preferred by the aforementioned plaintiffs.
(2.) At the stage of admission, I have heard the submissions of Sri A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellants, and of Sri U. Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel on caveat for the respondents 2 to 4, on the limited aspect as to whether any substantial questions of law raised by the appellants or any other substantial questions of law are involved; And, if so, whether the second appeal deserves to be admitted or not. I have perused the material record.
(3.) Before proceeding further, it is apt to note that though in the grounds of appeal substantial questions 'a' to 'j' were raised, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only the questions 'a', 'f', 'g' and 'i' are the substantial questions involved in this second appeal. The said questions verbatim read as under: a) Whether both the courts have erred in giving the findings beyond the pleadings of the parties of the Suit? f) Whether the courts below are right in deciding that the genuinety of 38-E certificates issued in the name of Appellants in a suit for simpliciter injunction and coming to a conclusion that the appellants are not in possession of the suit scheduled property? g) Whether a written statement filed by M/s.Satish Mutually Aided CoOperative Housing Society can be taken on record without the said society being a party to the suit or in the appeal? Whether the said M/s.Satish Mutually Aided Co-Operative Housing Society has any locus standi to represent respondent/defendant in the suit and appeal without being a party to the suit or appeal? i) Having regard to the fact that the suit was filed for bare injunction, whether the courts below mis-directed themselves in not dealing with the factum of possession and irrelevantly going into the issues of title and dismissing the suit on entirely unsustainable premises? Further, by filing a memo, vide USR No. 4346 of 2016, certain additional substantial questions are also raised and it is stated that the said questions are also the substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal. The said additional substantial questions verbatim read as under: 1. Whether the courts below were right in holding that the restriction imposed under section 48-A of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is applicable from the date of notification and not from issuance of 38- E certificate under form-II? 2. Whether is it mandatory to seek the relief of declaration of title when admittedly the Appellants are in possession of the property by virtue of 38E certificate under Ex-A7 to A11? 3. Whether the courts below were right in holding that Appellants were required to seek the relief of declaration of title, when the issue of title was already seized by this Hon'ble Court in CRP.No. 1368/2010? 4. Whether the Appellate Court was right in giving a finding with regard to title of the parties in a suit for injunction when there was no pleadings in this regard; no issue was framed in this regard and when no evidence was let in by the parties in this regard? 5. Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in holding that Ex-A7 to A11 has not mentioned the boundaries of the extent allotted to the Appellants when there is no such requirement under the provisions of A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 and Rules framed thereunder? 6. Whether selling away the suit scheduled property by the Appellants during the pendency of the suit to third parties disentitles them for relief of injunction, even though they were in possession of the suit scheduled property on the date of filing of the suit? 7. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that non-examination of all the Plaintiffs is fatal to the case of Appellants?;